ArticleClinical and translational allergy2025
Improving Diagnostic Accuracy in Respiratory Allergy: Monocentric Reevaluation of the GA
Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving Diagnostic Accuracy in Respiratory Allergy: Monocentric Reevaluation of the GAClinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEuropean guidelines recommend using a standardized baseline series of skin prick test (SPT) allergens for the diagnosis of airway allergies. In addition, local adaptation and/or extension of test panels according to regional exposure and sensitization patterns are increasingly being discussed.
methodsRegional sensitization rates according to SPTs based on the most recent GA
resultsHigh sensitization rates to the baseline SPT series were observed in our highly selected study cohort. The positivity rates were particularly high for olive pollen (30.8%) and plantain pollen (33.4%). Positive olive and birch pollen SPTs were found in 98.5% of olive-ash-birch pollen tested patients. High SPT positivity rates (98.1%) for plane tree and olive tree pollen were found, whereas only six patients (1.9%) were diagnosed with exclusive cypress pollen sensitization. Subgroup analysis of SPTs for palm tree pollen revealed that 92% of patients with palm tree positivity showed polysensitization, and all but one patient had concomitant grass pollen sensitization.
conclusionRegular evaluations of SPT series may be necessary because of climate change, extract production, and increasing population mobility. Ash and cypress pollen extracts could currently be removed from the baseline SPT panel without significantly decreasing diagnostic accuracy. Positive SPTs to non-native palm tree pollen may indicate the presence of IgE to cross-reacting panallergens, which may help to differentiate primary sensitization from cross-reactivity directly. Limitations include the retrospective monocentric design and lack of molecular IgE confirmation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.